Proposition 8 Squashed

[Herr Heckler Koch]

Works fine for me, especially when, as that study shows 20/29 examined incest parings had significant genetic abnormalities including four caused by recessive alleles. That's empiricism and not vague hand waving.

While we are forced to be our brother's keepers, as by 0bamascare, then we have a say. Same as for the libertarian's favorite protected class, the druggies. When we can spurn a druggie in the gutter and be guilt free then we can move on. Until then, your rights end at my pocketbook.

ETA after I stewed over such ignorance while I got in color guard uniform for Saint Patrick's Saint's Day parade.

You know, like anyone that isn't white with blond hair and blue eyes.

You have called up their ghost, unnamed, now compare and contrast their economic policy, the WWII National Socialists', with 0bama's economic policy.

 

[marshaul]

The society that will have to maintain the victims of the potentially disabling homozygous alleles.

Baird, PA; McGillivray, B (1982). "Children of incest". The Journal of Pediatrics 101 (5): 854–7http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0022-3476%2882%2980347-8

The law is simply not a reasonable or conceivably efficacious way of addressing the issue.

For most people, the social stigma is far more than enough to deter incest. For those who are not deterred, the law is in no position to act as a greater deterrent. That is, unless you think the law should install video cameras in bedrooms and begin genetically testing every newborn for "defects" and "abnormalities".

As to the suggestion (not original, I am aware) that such an approach is tolerable or even necessary due to obamacare etc, I find this little more than a commission of the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy. I can find no element of the current nanny state which justifies anything other than its complete and unequivocal dismemberment.

While I understand the viewpoint, I find it no better than those viewpoints which are responsible for nanny-statism in the first place. The only difference is the assignation of primary justification: in your case it derives from "two wrongs make a right", and in theirs it derives from some claim of preexisting social "responsibility".

Furthermore, tactically speaking, such an approach is unlikely to force people to confront nanny-statism itself on the proper terms.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Positivism is always wrong.

Laws should exist to minimize the control of government while maximizing human freedom.

As Marshaul points out laws rarely have much affect on peoples behavior we consider morally "wrong". Most people naturally abhor sex with close family members.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Positivism is always wrong.

Laws should exist to minimize the control of government while maximizing human freedom.

As Marshaul points out laws rarely have much affect on peoples behavior we consider morally "wrong". Most people naturally abhor sex with close family members.

Unfortunately, Laws maximize Government Power. I question whether it is possible that Laws would minimize Government Power.

Adam and Eve's kids must have abhorred sex with their siblings to propagate humans.

 

[marshaul]

Adam and Eve's kids must have abhorred sex with their siblings to propagate humans.

There should be a formal "appeal to biblical mythology" fallacy.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Unfortunately, Laws maximize Government Power. I question whether it is possible that Laws would minimize Government Power.

Adam and Eve's kids must have abhorred sex with their siblings to propagate humans.

WEll under progressive ideology it does.

The constitution is a limit on government power, and it enumerates what they can do.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

WEll under progressive ideology it does.

The constitution is a limit on government power, and it enumerates what they can do.

So, if the Constitution enumerates what the Federal Government can do, is there a limit within that scope? It seems that if there are enumerations of what the Government is permitted to do that the Government can go as far as the Government wishes, within the scope of the enumeration.

The Government being limited under the Constitution is in effect establishing the extent to which the Government may go.

Not trying to be argumentative. I just think that even if the Government were to function within it's enumerations (not stating that it is or is not) that there will still be debate about the extent the Government travels within the scope of the enumeration.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

So, if the Constitution enumerates what the Federal Government can do, is there a limit within that scope? It seems that if there are enumerations of what the Government is permitted to do that the Government can go as far as the Government wishes, within the scope of the enumeration.

The Government being limited under the Constitution is in effect establishing the extent to which the Government may go.

Not trying to be argumentative. I just think that even if the Government were to function within it's enumerations (not stating that it is or is not) that there will still be debate about the extent the Government travels within the scope of the enumeration.

That is where the debate should be within the enumerated powers of the limited scope of powers given government. Madison vetoed a roads bill as unconstitutional even though he was for it, he wanted congress to do it lawfully with an amendment. Government has twisted the meaning of the general welfare clause, and commerce clause to a meaning not intended. Hence granting themselves unlimited powers they were never to have.

Now the constitution could give the government unlimited powers if it is amended to do so.....I doubt you'd get enough support to ratify that.

 

[OC for ME]

The government has, practically speaking, unlimited powers now. What the government does not have, now, is the ability to prevent the redress of wrongs that occur as a result of their unlawful use of their 'unlimited powers'. But, Obama is working on that.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

The government has, practically speaking, unlimited powers now. What the government does not have, now, is the ability to prevent the redress of wrongs that occur as a result of their unlawful use of their 'unlimited powers'. But, Obama is working on that.

Good grief, as if President Obama is the only President who has worked to broaden Executive Powers.

The Government isn't going to prevent redress (the vote). Idealism, Dogma, Corporations and the uber-rich will do their part to muddy the waters of constructive productive political discourse though.

 

[OC for ME]

Practically speaking, you are correct, the vote may be a more rapid means to the redress wrongs at the hands of state sponsored thuggery, given the exemptions and immunities government has....um, given themselves, to delay the redress of wrongs.

By the way, it is not 'executive powers' that will get you on your local street corner. The feds are the last set of thugs I worry about.

The feds have a difficult time interfering in a state that has a legislature that actively and willingly impedes the federal bureaucracy's anti-liberty encroachment into our daily lives.